Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
The hard part is not the theory, which is hard enough to decipher, but to cultivate the ability to see the chain arise. I'll give you my theoretical view on this but do not know how to pass on the real understanding. And without it the theory is just another theory...
Ignorance of the attributes of the world, how the world and the self are created, i.e. not fully understanding the four noble truths is the foundation of the chain or maybe the encasing onion ring.
Due to this ignorance we create fabrications or allow fabrications to arise. I.e. the objects "created" by the senses gets attributed value that is beyond/in contrary to the understanding of anatta, anicca and dukkha.
Sankhara is all things. And therefore the second onion ring. This is not entirely true since the concept of ignorance is also a fabrication. But for the sake of building a picture indulge me please.
Consciousness is the agent that gives names to form. It lands on the fabrications and lifts them up from the unconsciousness. There is no real line between the conscious and unconscious other that proper attention (and contact).
When a form is named its value that was wrongfully given due to ignorance creates feeling. Feeling creates craving or aversion, which is the same thing. For the uninstructed mind the clinging is instantaneous.
And the rest is history.
My way of letting go is to see the wrongfully attributed value of a thing and releasing the value. Simply put.
Thanks. I still find DO a bit of puzzle, and there are more interpretations than you can shake a stick up! Currently I'm being mindful of feeling and trying to see how it relates to craving and "I am". I don't think that feeling itself is the problem, rather it's the way we identify with it - and perhaps the same could be said of the fabrications?
@SpinyNorman said:
Thanks. I still find DO a bit of puzzle, and there are more interpretations than you can shake a stick up!
Yepp. The important thing is to identify the different parts as they arise. Then work on from there. I too have many issues unresolved in this understanding but I think the first step is to be able to work with the process as it happens and get an inclination of how to stop it.
Currently I'm being mindful of feeling and trying to see how it relates to craving and "I am". I don't think that feeling itself is the problem, rather it's the way we identify with it - and perhaps the same could be said of the fabrications?
Yes that is my impression too. The identification process is where the ignorance comes into play.
@Victorious that's a nice simple way of explaining it,
Would you say the same for seeing a flower but not as a flower but as water, earth, sunlight etc?
There's that well-known passage from the Bahiya Sutta:
_ "Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."
_
@Earthninja said:
Victorious that's a nice simple way of explaining it,
Would you say the same for seeing a flower but not as a flower but as water, earth, sunlight etc?
I would say more like a rainbow.
Sunlight opposite rain that fall
Unless exactly rays droplets call
No bow arises in sky at all.
It’s not so much that we have a self, it’s that we do self-ing.The self has not inherent, unconditional, absolute existence apart from the network of causes it arises from, in,and as…
This short clip "Mind Matters" on what is the self "Buddhism, Jung & Freud on the self " is interesting, if I do say so my "self"..... . ..
@Victorious said:
How the self arises (and what it is) is described in the dependent origination. It really is tricky but well worth the effort to try and understand the process and see for yourself how it arises in "you".
Delving into dependent origination is deep down dhamma.
The ancient Buddhist probably knew little about the anatomical ear and sound vibrations. That was how it was then.
There is the ear(in here) and the ear object(out there) and ear consciousness that results. The meeting of the 3 is contact. Without contact(phassa) one couldn't discern the ear, ear object and ear consciousness. Contact is the process where sounds get heard.
The zen saying,"Is there sound when no one is listening?" can be reversed, "Is there a hearer without sounds?". The hearer and heard arise together(like sheafs of reed see Nalakalapiyo Sutta). That is dependent co-arising in its rudimentary form.
idappaccayata [idappaccayataa]: This/that conditionality. "This is, because that is. This is not, because that is not. This comes to be, because that comes to be. This ceases to be, because that ceases to be."
The reason it is important to see the arising and passing away of phenomena is to see how this "self" as the seer, hearer, thinker arises and passes from moment to moment. That is how the sense of a solid self gets broken up.
"If anyone were to say, 'The eye is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the eye are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'The eye is the self.' So the eye is not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Forms are the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self and forms are not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Consciousness at the eye is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Contact at the eye is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self, contact at the eye is not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Feeling is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self, contact at the eye is not-self, feeling is not self. If anyone were to say, 'Craving is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of craving are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'Craving is the self.' Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self, contact at the eye is not-self, feeling is not self, craving is not-self.
"This, monks, is the path of practice leading to self-identification. One assumes about the eye that 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.' One assumes about forms... One assumes about consciousness at the eye... One assumes about contact at the eye... One assumes about feeling... One assumes about craving that 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.'
Chachakka Sutta
Have you read about the net of indra? Each node (representing an individual dharma, or an individual mindstream) is seamlessly interconnected to all other nodes, so that a change in one node is reflected on all other nodes in this web of interdependency. Therefore, none of the node is central, and yet everything is central.
Bernie Glassman said:
"Maha Prajnaparamita Hrdaya Sutra: The whole message is right here. If we could really see this word maha, see this One Body, see this one garden that is us, the world would look different. Instead of seeing trees, soil, manure, and flowers as different, separate things, we'd see them as One Body with different qualities, features, and characteristics. We'd see that when we cultivate the soil, we cultivate all the rest. Taking care of the tree affects the flowers; taking care of a flower affects the soil.
In the same way, we usually see the body as a limited, bound thing, yet we know that it has many features -- hands, toes, numerous hairs and pores (all different), skin, bones, blood, guts, an assortment of organs, many feet of intestines. But they're all just one body with many, many features and characteristics. Hit one part and the whole feels it; the entire body is affected. Eat some food and what part is not affected? Breathe, what part is not affected?
Using the human body as a model of the One Body is a little misleading because the One Body has no outside or inside. We have to see this, we have to see maha. How do we see maha? We wake up!"
I think that there is no one who has not heard the name Descartes. Rene Descartes (1596-1650) was a great philosopher and mathematician born in France. He was a contemporary with the great physicist, Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), born in Italy Descartes, in Discourse on the Method, a work published in 1637, wrote, “I think, therefore I am.”1 These words, signifying the comprehension of the existence of the self as a reality beyond doubt, formed probably the most famous and most important proposition in the history of modern philosophy. For that reason Descartes is called the Father of Modern Philosophy.
The process of Descartes’ cognitive methodology in the Discourse on the Method is, to put it simply: “If something can be doubted even a little, it must be completely rejected.” Those things which we usually think of as correct must be completely rejected should there be even the faintest doubt about them. In such a process even the proposition that 1 + 1 = 2, which seems to be self-evident reasoning, is rejected. However, Descartes asserts that the one thing that cannot be excluded and remains last of all is the perception “I think, therefore I am.” Is this true? Should this be rejected? Certainly there is a self which thinks about the self thinking. This fact cannot be denied.
But was Descartes really right?
Descartes was mistaken. I cannot help but say so. Perhaps someone will say to me, “Do you really think that you have the knowledge and intelligence sufficient to refute the conclusion drawn by one of the greatest thinkers known to us, someone who thoroughly thought through the problem and reached a conclusion affirmed by everyone?” It goes without saying that I do not have the knowledge and intelligence of Descartes. However, this is not a question of knowledge and intelligence. It is rather a question of the real world discovered through experience.
Descartes is mistaken in a number of points.First of all, the proposition itself, “I think, therefore I am” is a tautological contradiction. The contradiction lies in the fact that while the proposition seeks to show the process whereby one can know the existence of “I,” already from the start it is presupposing that existence in the words, “I think.” This contradiction seems at first to be only a matter of word usage and not something essential to the argument. However, it is really closely tied up with the essence of the problem.
To think about “Is this correct? Is this mistaken?” is something that cannot be denied. “Thinking” is a reality that cannot be excluded. Up to this point it is true just as Descartes maintained. However, the next step in which Descartes knows the existence of “I” by “therefore I am” is where Descartes fell into error. Where in the world did Descartes bring in this “I”? Where in the world did Descartes find this “I”? I must say that as soon as Descartes started with “I think,” he already had fallen into this error.
“Thinking” is a reality that cannot be denied. But there is nothing beyond that reality of “thinking.” No matter where you look, something called “I” does not exist. No matter how much intellectual knowledge you may have, insofar as you do not have this experience, you cannot discover this world. “I think, therefore I am” must be re-phrased as “Thinking, but there is no I.”
When Master Joshu was asked what was the world discovered by Shakyamuni (What was the meaning of Bodhidharma’s coming from the West?) he answered, “The oak tree in the garden.” This is a famous koan in the Gateless Gate (Mumonkan).Jôshû is presenting the world of “Thinking, but there is no I.” The oak tree in the garden, besides that tree nothing else exists in heaven or earth--an even less so, a “Joshu” who is looking at it. This is the world that is manifested in this utterance.
“The oak tree in the garden, but there is no I.”
1The original French is: Je pense, donc je suis. This was rendered into Latin by a priest friend of Descartes as “Cogito ergo sum.”
(translated by Jerome CUSUMANO with the assistance of SATO Migaku)
From the “Opening Comments”of Kyosho (Sanbo-Kyodan’s official magazine) 342, 2011 (May/June)
Yet that thought of a thinker is still always just a thought without anyone/any thinker behind it. No watcher or thinker -- thought thinks, thought knows!
The most important catalyst for triggering Awakening to no-self is to investigate our Direct Experience. Direct Experience is what is noticed, here and now.
We can skilfully divide d.E., for the purposes of investigation, into 3 main aspects:
3) an unmistakable sense of Aliveness
(presence, being)
The illusion of separation is maintained by a stream of self referencing thoughts that are based on past conditioning. The most common reference point is a thought-created center referred to as “I” / “me” / “self”. There is no such center, and those self-labels refer only to other thoughts, or to some aspect of Experience.
By referring to d.E., one is able to deconstruct any assumptions of separation or self, and see that there is just an Experience. There may be thoughts about Experience that conceptually divide certain aspects of Experience into a “me” and other aspects into “the outside world”, yet those thoughts are also just a part of Experience, and as such there is ONLY Experience.
There is an assumption that there is an experience-er that experiences. This is propagated by a belief, as expressed by a thought such as “I experience”. We investigate this in d.E. by looking for this “I”. Is there a separate “I”, or is there just an Experience that thought conceptually divides as such: “I” + “what is experienced”?
There is an assumption that there is a perceive-er that perceives. This is propagated by a belief, as expressed by a thought such as “I am the perceiver”. We investigate this in d.E. by looking for this perceiver. We can see that there is no such thing as a perceiver, just a perception and thought dividing it in to an “I” + “body” + “perception through the senses”.
A sound is heard, then there is a thought “I hear a sound”. We can investigate and see that there is no hearer of sounds, just sound. If there is something felt and assumed to be the hearer, or self, is it anything more than some other sensations? or that sense of Aliveness? or another thought?
“I feel my body against the chair” a thought says. So, we investigate d.E. and see that there are sensations that are habitually labelled “body” and other sensations we refer to as “feeling of chair against body”. When we investigate where this “I” is that claims these sensations, it cannot be found, as there is either another self-referencing thought, some sensations or another aspect of Experience.
We can pick up an object, and look at it. We might say “I am looking at the object”. We then test this conclusion to see if it correlates with d.E., and what we find is that there is a sensation of seeing, and maybe some sensations that we usually label ‘head’ or ‘eyes’, or even other feeling-sensations labelled “body”. A thought may arise with the conclusion that these are inherently separate, and that one is “self” and the other is “what is observed”. When we test this out we see that there is never an “I” looking, never a watcher, never a seer. There is only seeing, only feeling, only Experiencing. We can say that it is simply Experience experiencing itself.
We look deeply in to Experience, and see that the assumptions of separation, self, “I”, perceive-er or an experience-er are just references to Experience. There is never an actual separate object, just the perception of such, and thoughts labeling it. We deconstruct all these assumptions of there being a watcher, or a looker, or a hearer, and find that there is only Experience, never an actual separate self.
Is it possible there is just Experience, with no separate experience-er?
@xabir said:
Yet that thought of a thinker is still always just a thought without anyone/any thinker behind it. No watcher or thinker -- thought thinks, thought knows!
...And we don't let the luminous-wisdom-display blind us from afflictive dependent origination. What is this karmic propensities? It is really just your very face -- experience -- as it is! There is nothing beyond, behind, or within karmic propensities -- the very delusionally shaped experience. It's like seeing those picture puzzles, at first it seems like black random shapes, yes? And then suddenly you saw "aha! there's a cow in there" and from then on, you cannot unsee that cow anymore. It's no longer black random shapes, there's clearly a cow very prominently shown in the picture. Now, this analogy has been used as representing 'awakening' -- a sudden shift of perception from ignorance to wisdom, seeing things as it is. However, this analogy is also perfect for the total exertion of karmic propensities.
Whereas previously you see a rope, suddenly rope becomes 'meaningful', now you see it as a snake, and it seemingly can't be unseen. Your mental conditioning has shaped the way you perceive and experience those 'black, random colours' into something truly solid and inherently existing in a certain manner. It is a magical 'creation' of a new experiential reality, the total exertion of our mental conditioning. That is like our delusional vision of self and inherent existence. It is our very experience itself shaped by karmic propensities into our very apparent reality. That is how delusion and karmic propensities manifest in our experience -- there is nothing hiding behind our experience influencing experience (some people may believe there is a hidden 'subconscious' pulling the strings on experience) or inside the very delusional appearance -- and just that is the total exertion of our afflicted conditionings. And this is no different from emptiness of self, the subject, where it is seen there is no inherent self/awareness/subject behind or within or beyond the very manifestation... but emptiness of self can be applied to all other things including 'karmic propensities'...
"The monk takes up residence in a cave & begins painting a tiger on his wall - an incredibly realistic tiger which takes him years to finish, and when he does finish it, it's so realistic that he becomes frightened by it."
This is fabrication(sankhara). Avija paccaya sankhara. Ignorance is the condition for mental formations.
The mind proliferates(papanca) and turns a simple rope into a snake. Heaven, hell, beings etc. is a mental creation.
Appearances are determined into existence. Why must we determine them? Because they don't intrinsically exist.
Emptiness is the realization that nothing has a permanent, substantial, independent existence ie. everything arises from causes and conditions. Since nothing is fixed or static, there is also infinite potentiality. This alone makes it possible for life in all its multiplicity to arise.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited August 2014
@pegembara said:
"I" think, therefore "I" think that "I" am. Thoughts become thinker.
The logic there actually suggests a "you" that thinks you are something else. You can't think you are when you are not.
Because there is impermanence does not mean nobody is there for now.
If that was the case then thought believes it is every one of us while being none. It actually points to a permanent self in thought itself.
Being is not the illusion. Being separate is.
Thought happens, therefore I think.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited August 2014
@pegembara said:
"The monk takes up residence in a cave & begins painting a tiger on his wall - an incredibly realistic tiger which takes him years to finish, and when he does finish it, it's so realistic that he becomes frightened by it."
This is fabrication(sankhara). Avija paccaya sankhara. Ignorance is the condition for mental formations.
The mind proliferates(papanca) and turns a simple rope into a snake. Heaven, hell, beings etc. is a mental creation.
Emptiness is the realization that nothing has a permanent, substantial, independent existence ie. everything arises from causes and conditions. Since nothing is fixed or static, there is also infinite potentiality. This alone makes it possible for life in all its multiplicity to arise.
@SpinyNorman said:
Isn't that example just a distortion of perception?
In a way yes. If you are in the safety of your own home, you are not likely to mistake a rope for a snake. Out there in a dark jungle, papanca distorts perception even more and turns a rope into a snake. Distorted perception is prior to papanca. Only arahants have non distorted perception.
The question is, "Does a rope even exist?" "Is there a thing called rope?"
"Monks, there are these four perversions of perception, perversions of mind, perversions of view. Which four? 'Constant' with regard to the inconstant is a perversion of perception, a perversion of mind, a perversion of view. 'Pleasant' with regard to the stressful... 'Self' with regard to not-self... 'Attractive' with regard to the unattractive is a perversion of perception, a perversion of mind, a perversion of view. These are the four perversions of perception, perversions of mind, perversions of view.
“Mankind delights in the objectification of the world, the Perfect Ones are free from such objectification.” (The Dhammapada Verse 254)
....the root of the classifications and perceptions of objectification is the thought, "I am the thinker." This thought forms the motivation for the questions that Ven. Maha Kotthita is presenting here: the sense of "I am the thinker" can either fear or desire annihilation in the course of Unbinding. Both concerns get in the way of the abandoning of clinging, which is essential for the attainment of Unbinding, which is why the questions should not be asked.
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Oh, mine too, lol.
I just have fun with it while knowing I am far from perfect.
Comments
Well ok.
The hard part is not the theory, which is hard enough to decipher, but to cultivate the ability to see the chain arise. I'll give you my theoretical view on this but do not know how to pass on the real understanding. And without it the theory is just another theory...
Ignorance of the attributes of the world, how the world and the self are created, i.e. not fully understanding the four noble truths is the foundation of the chain or maybe the encasing onion ring.
Due to this ignorance we create fabrications or allow fabrications to arise. I.e. the objects "created" by the senses gets attributed value that is beyond/in contrary to the understanding of anatta, anicca and dukkha.
Sankhara is all things. And therefore the second onion ring. This is not entirely true since the concept of ignorance is also a fabrication. But for the sake of building a picture indulge me please.
Consciousness is the agent that gives names to form. It lands on the fabrications and lifts them up from the unconsciousness. There is no real line between the conscious and unconscious other that proper attention (and contact).
When a form is named its value that was wrongfully given due to ignorance creates feeling. Feeling creates craving or aversion, which is the same thing. For the uninstructed mind the clinging is instantaneous.
And the rest is history.
My way of letting go is to see the wrongfully attributed value of a thing and releasing the value. Simply put.
/Victor
Thanks. I still find DO a bit of puzzle, and there are more interpretations than you can shake a stick up! Currently I'm being mindful of feeling and trying to see how it relates to craving and "I am". I don't think that feeling itself is the problem, rather it's the way we identify with it - and perhaps the same could be said of the fabrications?
Yepp. The important thing is to identify the different parts as they arise. Then work on from there. I too have many issues unresolved in this understanding but I think the first step is to be able to work with the process as it happens and get an inclination of how to stop it.
Yes that is my impression too. The identification process is where the ignorance comes into play.
@Victorious that's a nice simple way of explaining it,
Would you say the same for seeing a flower but not as a flower but as water, earth, sunlight etc?
There's that well-known passage from the Bahiya Sutta:
_ "Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."
_
I would say more like a rainbow.
Sunlight opposite rain that fall
Unless exactly rays droplets call
No bow arises in sky at all.
Exactly so. Have you experienced it? When the world stops?
I get glimpses of it from time to time.
I find it is addictive.
Kia Ora,
It’s not so much that we have a self, it’s that we do self-ing.The self has not inherent, unconditional, absolute existence apart from the network of causes it arises from, in,and as…
This short clip "Mind Matters" on what is the self "Buddhism, Jung & Freud on the self " is interesting, if I do say so my "self"..... .
..
Metta Shoshin .
..
The ancient Buddhist probably knew little about the anatomical ear and sound vibrations. That was how it was then.
There is the ear(in here) and the ear object(out there) and ear consciousness that results. The meeting of the 3 is contact. Without contact(phassa) one couldn't discern the ear, ear object and ear consciousness. Contact is the process where sounds get heard.
The zen saying,"Is there sound when no one is listening?" can be reversed, "Is there a hearer without sounds?". The hearer and heard arise together(like sheafs of reed see Nalakalapiyo Sutta). That is dependent co-arising in its rudimentary form.
idappaccayata [idappaccayataa]: This/that conditionality. "This is, because that is. This is not, because that is not. This comes to be, because that comes to be. This ceases to be, because that ceases to be."
The reason it is important to see the arising and passing away of phenomena is to see how this "self" as the seer, hearer, thinker arises and passes from moment to moment. That is how the sense of a solid self gets broken up.
With metta
Bernie Glassman said:
"Maha Prajnaparamita Hrdaya Sutra: The whole message is right here. If we could really see this word maha, see this One Body, see this one garden that is us, the world would look different. Instead of seeing trees, soil, manure, and flowers as different, separate things, we'd see them as One Body with different qualities, features, and characteristics. We'd see that when we cultivate the soil, we cultivate all the rest. Taking care of the tree affects the flowers; taking care of a flower affects the soil.
In the same way, we usually see the body as a limited, bound thing, yet we know that it has many features -- hands, toes, numerous hairs and pores (all different), skin, bones, blood, guts, an assortment of organs, many feet of intestines. But they're all just one body with many, many features and characteristics. Hit one part and the whole feels it; the entire body is affected. Eat some food and what part is not affected? Breathe, what part is not affected?
Using the human body as a model of the One Body is a little misleading because the One Body has no outside or inside. We have to see this, we have to see maha. How do we see maha? We wake up!"
http://www.sanbo-zen.org/artikel-3_e.html
Was Descartes Right?
The abbot of the Sanbô-Kyôdan
YAMADA Ryoun
(translated by Jerome CUSUMANO with the assistance of SATO Migaku)
From the “Opening Comments”of Kyosho (Sanbo-Kyodan’s official magazine) 342, 2011 (May/June)
"I" think, therefore "I" think that "I" am. Thoughts become thinker.
Yet that thought of a thinker is still always just a thought without anyone/any thinker behind it. No watcher or thinker -- thought thinks, thought knows!
Direct Experience
by Neil Jalaldeen
The most important catalyst for triggering Awakening to no-self is to investigate our Direct Experience. Direct Experience is what is noticed, here and now.
We can skilfully divide d.E., for the purposes of investigation, into 3 main aspects:
1) thought
2) sensations
seeing
hearing
smelling
tasting
feeling [tactile + kinesthetic)
3) an unmistakable sense of Aliveness
(presence, being)
The illusion of separation is maintained by a stream of self referencing thoughts that are based on past conditioning. The most common reference point is a thought-created center referred to as “I” / “me” / “self”. There is no such center, and those self-labels refer only to other thoughts, or to some aspect of Experience.
By referring to d.E., one is able to deconstruct any assumptions of separation or self, and see that there is just an Experience. There may be thoughts about Experience that conceptually divide certain aspects of Experience into a “me” and other aspects into “the outside world”, yet those thoughts are also just a part of Experience, and as such there is ONLY Experience.
There is an assumption that there is an experience-er that experiences. This is propagated by a belief, as expressed by a thought such as “I experience”. We investigate this in d.E. by looking for this “I”. Is there a separate “I”, or is there just an Experience that thought conceptually divides as such: “I” + “what is experienced”?
There is an assumption that there is a perceive-er that perceives. This is propagated by a belief, as expressed by a thought such as “I am the perceiver”. We investigate this in d.E. by looking for this perceiver. We can see that there is no such thing as a perceiver, just a perception and thought dividing it in to an “I” + “body” + “perception through the senses”.
A sound is heard, then there is a thought “I hear a sound”. We can investigate and see that there is no hearer of sounds, just sound. If there is something felt and assumed to be the hearer, or self, is it anything more than some other sensations? or that sense of Aliveness? or another thought?
“I feel my body against the chair” a thought says. So, we investigate d.E. and see that there are sensations that are habitually labelled “body” and other sensations we refer to as “feeling of chair against body”. When we investigate where this “I” is that claims these sensations, it cannot be found, as there is either another self-referencing thought, some sensations or another aspect of Experience.
We can pick up an object, and look at it. We might say “I am looking at the object”. We then test this conclusion to see if it correlates with d.E., and what we find is that there is a sensation of seeing, and maybe some sensations that we usually label ‘head’ or ‘eyes’, or even other feeling-sensations labelled “body”. A thought may arise with the conclusion that these are inherently separate, and that one is “self” and the other is “what is observed”. When we test this out we see that there is never an “I” looking, never a watcher, never a seer. There is only seeing, only feeling, only Experiencing. We can say that it is simply Experience experiencing itself.
We look deeply in to Experience, and see that the assumptions of separation, self, “I”, perceive-er or an experience-er are just references to Experience. There is never an actual separate object, just the perception of such, and thoughts labeling it. We deconstruct all these assumptions of there being a watcher, or a looker, or a hearer, and find that there is only Experience, never an actual separate self.
Is it possible there is just Experience, with no separate experience-er?
That's what the teachings on anatta and sunyata suggest.
Then why does the distinction feel so real?
Perhaps because it's so habitual, so ingrained?
Karmic propensities, conditionings and delusions are like a magical spell. But it releases once wisdom is awakened.
I just wrote this two days ago:
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/the-path-of-uncontrivance.html
...And we don't let the luminous-wisdom-display blind us from afflictive dependent origination. What is this karmic propensities? It is really just your very face -- experience -- as it is! There is nothing beyond, behind, or within karmic propensities -- the very delusionally shaped experience. It's like seeing those picture puzzles, at first it seems like black random shapes, yes? And then suddenly you saw "aha! there's a cow in there" and from then on, you cannot unsee that cow anymore. It's no longer black random shapes, there's clearly a cow very prominently shown in the picture. Now, this analogy has been used as representing 'awakening' -- a sudden shift of perception from ignorance to wisdom, seeing things as it is. However, this analogy is also perfect for the total exertion of karmic propensities.
Whereas previously you see a rope, suddenly rope becomes 'meaningful', now you see it as a snake, and it seemingly can't be unseen. Your mental conditioning has shaped the way you perceive and experience those 'black, random colours' into something truly solid and inherently existing in a certain manner. It is a magical 'creation' of a new experiential reality, the total exertion of our mental conditioning. That is like our delusional vision of self and inherent existence. It is our very experience itself shaped by karmic propensities into our very apparent reality. That is how delusion and karmic propensities manifest in our experience -- there is nothing hiding behind our experience influencing experience (some people may believe there is a hidden 'subconscious' pulling the strings on experience) or inside the very delusional appearance -- and just that is the total exertion of our afflicted conditionings. And this is no different from emptiness of self, the subject, where it is seen there is no inherent self/awareness/subject behind or within or beyond the very manifestation... but emptiness of self can be applied to all other things including 'karmic propensities'...
"The monk takes up residence in a cave & begins painting a tiger on his wall - an incredibly realistic tiger which takes him years to finish, and when he does finish it, it's so realistic that he becomes frightened by it."
This is fabrication(sankhara). Avija paccaya sankhara. Ignorance is the condition for mental formations.
The mind proliferates(papanca) and turns a simple rope into a snake. Heaven, hell, beings etc. is a mental creation.
Emptiness is the realization that nothing has a permanent, substantial, independent existence ie. everything arises from causes and conditions. Since nothing is fixed or static, there is also infinite potentiality. This alone makes it possible for life in all its multiplicity to arise.
The logic there actually suggests a "you" that thinks you are something else. You can't think you are when you are not.
Because there is impermanence does not mean nobody is there for now.
If that was the case then thought believes it is every one of us while being none. It actually points to a permanent self in thought itself.
Being is not the illusion. Being separate is.
Thought happens, therefore I think.
Yes. And arise we do, as we must also fall away.
Isn't that example just a distortion of perception?
In a way yes. If you are in the safety of your own home, you are not likely to mistake a rope for a snake. Out there in a dark jungle, papanca distorts perception even more and turns a rope into a snake. Distorted perception is prior to papanca. Only arahants have non distorted perception.
The question is, "Does a rope even exist?" "Is there a thing called rope?"
"Monks, there are these four perversions of perception, perversions of mind, perversions of view. Which four? 'Constant' with regard to the inconstant is a perversion of perception, a perversion of mind, a perversion of view. 'Pleasant' with regard to the stressful... 'Self' with regard to not-self... 'Attractive' with regard to the unattractive is a perversion of perception, a perversion of mind, a perversion of view. These are the four perversions of perception, perversions of mind, perversions of view.
Vipallasa Sutta
Too much papanca. My head spins trying to figure all this out.
Papanca [proliferation] and
Nippapanca [non-proliferation]
Akaseva padam natthi
samano natthi bahire
papancabhirata paja
nippapanca tathagata.
“Mankind delights in the objectification of the world, the Perfect Ones are free from such objectification.” (The Dhammapada Verse 254)
With metta
Oh, mine too, lol.
I just have fun with it while knowing I am far from perfect.
There's a very good article on papanca and anatta:
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/some-remarks-on-conceptualization-and.html
"Some remarks on conceptualization and transcendent experience in the Theravāda tradition, with two notes on translation"